Washington v. Taseca Homes, Inc.

Summary

In this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s deposition statement denying that the plaintiff had done anything careless was admissible as an opposing-party statement under OEC 801(4)(b)(A). The court held that the admission was relevant to comparative fault and that the opinion-rule requirements of OEC 701 did not apply. Because the liability and damages issues were intertwined, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues.

Holdings

1. A party's own statement offered against that party is admissible as an admission of an adverse party under OEC 801(4)(b)(A), and the technical requirements of the lay-opinion rule, OEC 701, do not apply to exclude the statement.
2. A new trial must be conducted on liability and damages, rather than being limited to comparative fault, when the evidence concerning liability and damages is sufficiently intertwined.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's deposition statement denying that plaintiff had done anything careless causing the accident was admissible as the statement of an adverse party under OEC 801(4)(b)(A), notwithstanding the requirements of OEC 701 for lay opinion testimony.
2. Whether the new trial should be limited to comparative fault or should include liability and damages.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded